Mr LilleyI asked the Hacked Off lobby group, which was lobbying me and saying that it was keen to answer my questions, what powers to prevent or require publication the regulator will be given by this royal charter, what sort of material it could prevent or require the publication of, and what limits there are to the sorts of material it could prevent or require publication of.tHowever, that is not all the charter can do—the powers go beyond that to enabling the regulator to do other things, such as requiring those who subscribe to publish a factual correction. That is a pretty dangerous step. We are giving a body the right to decide what is fact and what is true. At best, that is a recipe for multitudinous time-wasting complaints that something is factually incorrect; at worst, it will establish a mini, self-appointed “Ministry of Truth”, which can decide what is true and must be published and what is false and must be withdrawn.My third point is on prevention. The charter says:“The board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material”.I am not sure what the legal power of “should not” is. The charter also states that the board “should” be able to do other things.Mr Lilley: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. The document does not prevent the regulator from preventing publication; it says merely that publication “should” be prevented by someone else if they get around to it.In any case, since the regulator can offer advice to editors of subscribing publications on how they should best comply with the code, and punish editors with fines of up to Ł1 million if they subsequently do not follow such advice, it effectively means that the regulator has the considerable power to prohibit or discourage publication.The final question I asked Hacked Off was whether there were any limits in the measure as to how far the body and the code can go in future when it is annually reviewed. Each time it will be made more intense and its scope will be extended because that is how regulators work—they always increase their powers. As far as I could work out from Hacked Off’s rather incoherent reply, there are no limits to the powers that the body can grant itself or the extent to which it can go.It find it worrying that we are, so far with no discussion, setting up a body with open-ended powers. I hope that when the body is established, a lot of media organisations will have the courage to follow The Spectator and stand aside from it and remain free while, hopefully, adopting the highest standards in how they publish and how they treat the public.

18 March 2013 v6 (clean) DRAFT ROYAL CHARTER ON SELF-REGULATION OF THE PRESS

SCHEDULE 4 INTERPRETATION Key definitions 1. For the purposes of this Charter:

a) “Regulator” means an independent body formed by or on behalf of relevant publishers for the purpose of conducting regulatory activities in relation to their publications;

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or ii. a website containing news-related (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine;)

d) a person “publishes in the United Kingdom” if the publication takes place in the United Kingdom or is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom;

e) “news-related material” means:

i. news or information about current affairs; ii. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or iii. gossip about celebrities, other public figures OR OTHER PERSONS IN THE NEWS.

"We are giving a body the right to decide what is fact and what is true.""....at worst, it will establish a mini, self-appointed “Ministry of Truth”, which can decide what is true and must be published and what is false and must be withdrawn."

Good or bad?My take on this is that ANYONE can go to the regulator and complain if they think something "is FACTUAL or not"That includes all of US on this forum.IF THE MCCANNS DARE SAY THAT "Madeleine WAS abducted" we, anyone, can go to the regulator and say, "unless the McCanns can PROVE that is FACTUALLY correct we don't want it published."Secondley, and i don't think the McCanns have thought about this is that, journalists will now have to do proper RESEARCH, so as to avoid HUGE fines to their papers, and not just publish what "pinky" feeds them.SHOULDN'T TAKE THEM TOO LONG TO DISCREDIT GERRY/JEZ 'WHO CROSSED THE ROAD' QUESTION,AND WHICH ONE OF THEM WAS LYING.Any "FAIRYTALE" that Pinky plants in the 'medja' can be challenged, by anyone, unless HE, as the source, can prove that it is FACTUALLY correct.I do believe that I can say that " my explanation, as to why Madeleine is not here is because, Madeleine was NOT abducted, and that I believe her parents WERE involved in her disappearance, and simulated an 'abduction' to cover themselves"The McCanns would have to PROVE, to the regulator, if they don't want THAT published, that Madeleine WAS, in FACT, 'abducted'Given that the McCanns own QC will never again (presumeably) state, as FACT that "Madeleine WAS abducted" something she said was FACTUALLY TRUE, in her sworn affidavit at TB's 'trial' but HASTILY WITHDREW in an ACTUAL, REAL courtroom will the McCanns even dare to 'challenge' a complainant, or a journalist, who goes to the regulator, with a view to publish and challenge their 'version' of events surroundingMadeleines 'disappearance'?Finally, the best thing about this is that it is FREE to 'complain' to the regulator!!!WOOHOOOOOO!

mccanns have gagged the UK press from publishing PJ files..therefore there is no connection to UK press..at all. And it's not gossip. You can blog about it as you please. Absolutely now conncetion to UK news, media, government or press. PJ files are non existent for them. How could the regulator say..you can't blog about them. They don't exist in UK..anywhere.

I could always start a blog called "NOT aimed at 'an audience in the UK" ..what can the regulators do? Nothing. It has nothing to do with them.

"I too found it hard to believe what I was hearing yesterday and the many times the name McCann was mentioned" ('debate' in Commons 18th March 2013)

I think we can all agree that the McCanns are fully paid up members of Hacked Off the lobby group that wants to close down information from anywhere at anytime.However, with their (McCanns) narcissism to the fore have THEY been set up to take the complete blame for any future 'censorship' of the press, all forms.?In the 'debate' in the commons, on Monday, it was "the McCanns this, the McCanns that" hardly anyone mentioned Moseley or Grant.Kate McCann once said ' we were naive 'However, with the McCanns, constant quest for 'fame' and desire to 'get in the press' which they 'abhor' (apparently) at every opportunity their ' naviety' has taken a back seat.This is a problem for them.When press 'censorship' is being mentioned, the first name to be associated with it will be the McCanns.Constant mentioning of THEIR names.Hugh Grant was on a plane 'outta here' to LA BEFORE the debate.No questions for him.Leave it to the McCanns to 'explain' why Hacked Off wanted freedom of speech 'silenced'Unstable 'characters' might, possibly, ONLY associate the McCanns, as the mouth piece for Hacked Off, with the loss of their indiividuality for "blogging."What then?Strange how the McCanns have 'gone to ground' suddenly.You'd think they would be telling the whole world about how THEY curtailed the UK press.Not a peep!Just to add about 'our Pinky'He accompanied 'our Gerry' on his 'rounds' of the media last week to tell, instruct, order the 'interviewers' that they MUST NOT ask GM about anything (not even to ask how the search for Madeleine was going) except Hacked Off. Transparent to the core.Just as Hacked Off are completely transparent about who funds them.................NOT!

If the McCanns are indeed eventually found to be 'involved' in the disappearance of Madeleine just see how fast Hacked Off disown them!DAILY SMELL, EXCLUSIVE!"GRANT SUPPORTED MCCANNS IN COVER UP OVER MADDY 'DISAPPEARANCE'"Not a HEADLINE Mr Grant would welcome, imo.

ETA:

But the group, Hacked Off, was scolded by MPs today for not revealing the names of wealthy donors who bankrolled their campaign.

Tory Philip Davies said: “Hacked Off represent people who court publicity for all its worth for financial return but don’t like the negative publicity that sometimes goes with it.